Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
220-239)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ROBERT QUICK
QPM
10 FEBRUARY 2009
Q220 Chairman: Perhaps I may begin
by asking you about the role of the police in leak inquiries and
the evidence we received from Sir David Normington, permanent
secretary at the Home Office. The police are called in at the
behest of the Home Office in these and presumably other cases.
When do you make the decision that it is a matter for a police
investigation rather than an internal matter for the government
department?
Mr Quick: Each case is assessed
on its merits. I was first alerted to the potential for a criminal
investigation in October when I had contact from the Cabinet Office
and received a letter from that office outlining the history of
a series of leaks emanating from the Home Office. There was some
comment in the letter about the impact of those leaks. I met some
Cabinet Office officials to discuss broadly the potential for
a police investigation and at that point I agreed we would scope
its potential and assign a senior officer to work with them to
look at the facts and information known to date and to give me
a view as to whether or not a criminal inquiry might be appropriate.
Q221 Chairman: At that stage you
do not consult anyone else; you do not inform the chairman of
the Metropolitan Police Authority, tell the permanent secretary
or report to the Home Secretary. This is a decision that you take
on your own. Is it purely operational?
Mr Quick: This was purely operational
and was really just a process to gather the facts. It was not
the launch of an investigation at that time but to gain a more
detailed understanding of the information available and make an
assessment of it. Clearly, in my mind at that time would be the
very routine course of action of consulting crown prosecutors
at some point, which indeed took place later.
Q222 Chairman: Are they involved
at a very early stage?
Mr Quick: It is custom and practice
within my business group and across the Metropolitan Police in
all areas of investigation to have very early engagement with
crown prosecutors. Over the past 10 years or so we have seen a
significant change in the relationship and working practices.
It is very common to have early engagement.
Q223 Chairman: When you move to stage
two again is that your decision? Is it an operational matter or
do you have to consult anybody?
Mr Quick: Because of the obvious
sensitivities of this particular investigation stage two involved
wider consultation within the Metropolitan Police service and
between the Met and Cabinet Office. There was a series of conversations
but a scoping exercise took place involving a metropolitan police
commander and then a senior investigating officer who was appointed
and terms of reference for a police inquiry were negotiated and
agreed. That took maybe three weeks.
Q224 Mr Brake: As to those terms
of reference for the police inquiry, can you explain who was involved
in drawing them up, with whom they were agreed and by whom they
were signed off?
Mr Quick: In my absence the deputy
assistant commissioner took over the negotiation and agreement
of the terms of reference in consultation with the then deputy
commissioner and the Cabinet Office. I recall briefing the commissioner
at the time, Sir Ian Blair, on the potential for a police inquiry.
Q225 Mr Winnick: As far as concern
any charge against Mr Green or Mr Galley, we note that early in
this year the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said
that his service had not yet been presented with enough evidence
by the police to make a judgment about whether a successful prosecution
was possible. Has any later information been given to you by the
CPS?
Mr Quick: I cannot remember the
date on which Mr Starmer made those comments, but there has been
regular contact with crown prosecutors throughout the inquiry
and a number of submissions have been made; indeed, further submissions
are anticipated.
Q226 Mr Winnick: What you are telling
us is that since Mr Starmer said there was not sufficient evidence
you have presented further evidence which the CPS is obviously
considering in the usual way?
Mr Quick: Yes.
Q227 David Davies: Did any of the
conversations with the Cabinet Office to which you refer involve
ministers?
Mr Quick: No.
Q228 David Davies: So, there was
no ministerial involvement from the Cabinet Office at any time?
Mr Quick: No.
Q229 Gwyn Prosser: You said that
you have had consultations and discussions with the CPS. Is that
the same as receiving formal advice from them in terms of the
conduct of the investigation?
Mr Quick: If I understand your
question, there are two processes at work. One arises during the
course of an investigation. In this investigation at key points
investigators met crown prosecutors and took advice which then
helped them to formulate their plans to take forward the investigation
and make any decisions that might be needed. The second process
arises during the course of the investigation when we submit evidential
files for consideration. They may not be complete files; they
may be at key stages during the investigation for the CPS to review
and upon which it can give further advice.
Q230 Gwyn Prosser: But would the
CPS be keeping a watching brief at that stage or advising on the
conduct of the investigation to come?
Mr Quick: We work in partnership
with crown prosecutors on criminal investigations and operational
decisions are ours, ie the police are responsible for operational
decisions, but we take them in consideration of any advice we
receive from crown prosecutors.
Q231 Gwyn Prosser: Are you able to
tell us who in the CPS provided you with that advice?
Mr Quick: There were two crown
prosecutors involved in giving advice. The name of the prosecutor
escapes me for the moment.
Q232 Gwyn Prosser: Would you drop
us a note?
Mr Quick: They were special case
work lawyers within the CPS.
Q233 Chairman: In answer to David
Davies you said that no ministers were involved in any of these
decisions when you reached stage two of what you were doing. Can
you confirm that that applies also to the chairman of the Metropolitan
Police Authority?
Mr Quick: I can confirm that the
chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority was not involved in
any operational decision-making.
Q234 Mr Winnick: As I understand
it, three warrants under the appropriate section of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act were issued and one place was searched
with permission. Am I correct that that place was the Palace of
Westminster?
Mr Quick: That is correct.
Q235 Mr Winnick: You say "with
permission". Can you explain to us—I do not need to
remind you of just how sensitive it is to parliamentarians and
parliamentary privilege—the process by which you sought
permission? You made a phone call in the first place?
Mr Quick: It may help if I try
to explain the chronology of events. As assistant commissioner
I was aware of the inquiry, the terms of reference that had been
agreed and that an investigation was under way. I was also aware
of the plan to arrest a civil servant within the Home Office.
Q236 Chairman: Can you give us the
date of that?
Mr Quick: This was in the days
prior to 19 November and the arrest of Mr Christopher Galley.
His name is obviously now in the public domain. I was aware of
that plan and the operation to bring about his arrest and questioning.
The day following that arrest I received a telephone call. I was
outside London at the time.
Q237 Chairman: Therefore, that was
on 20 November?
Mr Quick: On 20 November I received
a telephone call from a deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan
Police and had a discussion about the impact of that arrest.
Q238 Mr Winnick: What is the name
of the deputy assistant commissioner?
Mr Quick: Deputy Assistant Commissioner
McDowell. We discussed the arrest of Mr Galley. As a result of
what he told me—I cannot go into the details—we both
agreed that we ought to proceed with significant caution from
that moment on. I believe on that very day an officer was deployed
to the Palace of Westminster to start a conversation, initially
through the intermediary of the chief superintendent at the palace
in charge of policing, with the parliamentary authorities about
a potential police investigation/operation. That was on 20 November.
Q239 Mr Winnick: What was the name
of the officer to whom you have just referred?
Mr Quick: I believe it was Detective
Sergeant Walker who attended the palace and spoke with the chief
superintendent here.
| 
